A discussion on CHYOA Rules

Also, some clarifications on what does and doesn't break the rules:

If a robot has sufficient intelligence to pass the Turing test, it's a person. If it cannot pass the Turing test, it's a complex computer. AI doesn't scale up from 'stupid' to 'smart' in the sense of animals and people.

Tentacles are normally considered inanimate objects. If they're attached to a creature, then whether they're allowed would depend on whether the creature passes the Harkness test. So, the legality of tentacles changes based on the context.

Again, if a chapter breaks the rules, then report it. However, I don't think this is the case in The Captive Prince. Naivety is a character trait that can appear in adults.

And they're playing with fire.

 

Just as i thought, these rules are much more about legality than about morality, thanks for confirming this. Well, if its the case, those aren't going to change even if I convincingly prove that bestiality is moral (highly unlikely that i could, just a hypothetical scenario). So i'm not going to continue with advocating any of those, or denounce other allowed cathegories, like mindcontrol, which to me personally appears much more horrible and inhuman than everything else combined. Just wanted to know what's up with those rules, you know.

Not only he's a naive, but he's also short, weak, cries alot, has a small dick, has zero sexual expertise, thinks about parents at all times and reads a novel where strong onee-san knight would take him under her wing. Literally everything about him just screams that he's shota, even though he's offhandedly described as of age. I'm not going to report that ofc, I love that story, just a sidenote about how those rules are more about appearance than actual substance.

 

Often The Devil is in the details. There is not any rules on the site that prevents your protagonist from being a Baby Back Bitch. None of the features that you describe are exclusive to children.

 

Yeah, i know that nominally everything is alright with that exact prince, but I just can't imagine him as an adult to save my life, and its not because i have a bad imagination

 

I see an adult like this every time I look in the mirror.

 

In my defense as the writer of the Captive Prince I did not at all intend for Marcus to be a shota or even fit that archetype. I see him more as a 'femboy', with those traits you mention reflecting his innocence, naiveite and quite girly nature. Insertnamehere also summed up some of my feelings. I'm overage and I do share a lot with him as a character, including his desires for an older, more experienced woman.

I do also feel that those traits that could apply wouldn't normally be remarked upon in an adult woman character in a story who was meant to be a submissive, it would be accepted that she was over eighteen but just weak physically, naïve and lacking in sexual experience and wanting an older partner to teach her the ropes. Marcus is the same.

 

You and me both

 

Haha, I can agree, I woudn't be bothered with described character, if it was a girl, which actually makes me a sexist here. Sorry dudes, i'm just a mere white male cisgender blockhead, I couldn't help myself but to perceive prince inside of confines of my usual gender stereotypes. If even author himself confirms that prince isn't shota at all, that makes me stupid and my arguments invalid.
BTW, PrinceCai, I want to voice my appreciation for your work, you managed to portray your femboy in very enjoyable manner, more cute and less sexual comparing to ones I usually see in smut. I wish there would be more crossdressing arcs though, its just a thing that makes his image complete (and I'm actually starved for good cute crossdressing stories in general, its always paired with sissification for some reason).

 

Yeah I can appreciate these things are difficult. We're all victim to our own biases. It just wasn't my plan at all for Marcus to be viewed as a shota.

Thanks for the praise anyway! I did start out wanting to do something different. I love the idea of an innocent and naïve femboy being gently dominated by stronger and more experienced women and it is quite a rare thing to find a story like that so I thought I'd write my own instead. Glad to hear you're enjoying it!

Crossdressing is part of what I like, and I definitely share your feelings there too. I much prefer it to be a cute and nice thing which is enjoyed by both partners rather than like enforced sissification of some poor guy by women who seem to hate him and hold him in contempt. It will be showing up more in some of the threads I promise, and I do have some branches planned in future where it will also be featured heavily from the start.

 

The ability to consent is just to make sure that the character is human-like and not animal-like. It also says something about the character's mental maturity.

So there is no problem to describe non-consensual scenes involving non-human characters that pass the Harkness test.

Exactly.
I think the rule is quite clear about the limits in that regard. It also points out the limits of some common examples.

The story you're probably referring to should be fine.

Writing has a lot of stuff that would violate our underage rule.
Also, in some countries, you can even have sex with animals legally, so it also depends on where the server is located.
(Though this might not apply to the users. Even though the site might not get into trouble for something doesn't mean that the users don't have to adhere to the laws of their place of residence.)

I don't consider tentacles inanimate objects but alive.
Tentacles monsters can either be plants or animal-like creatures, so it depends on the description. If they are planted somewhere and can't move their roots, they can be considered a plant.

 

Ok, now I'm seriously confused.... If bestiality prohibition on this site has legal reasons, has nothing to do with consent, and everything to do with "don't write about sex with animals because authorities may shut down our site for breaking the laws" reasoning, why is Harkness Test such an accepted and ubiquitous litmus test for distinguishing bestiality from non-bestiality? Shouldn't we just use a legal formulations instead? Why is some meme internet rule used instead? I'm pretty confident that legally bestiality would be worded as something like "sexual intercourse between human and animal", and since fantasy beast can't be considered an animal (at least legally), we have no crime case. Similarly to fictional rape we discussed above, no real victim - no crime. That would make something like human on dragon sex alright, even if dragon has intelligence level of mackerel.

 

Essentially, the entire matter is that of the court's opinion. As it is right now, the US Supreme Court applies "Community Standards" which are those of the most backwards Facebook user who wants to make a stink. Totally a matter of a judge's opinion, and I tend to find that if you try to split hairs, they like to make you regret it. The Court has consistently ruled in favor of police and censorship in the last several decades. Consistency is not the goal, IMHO. Corporate entities with deep pockets can easily find that the law is totally on their side when they want to do explicit 11 year olds twerking.

Short Version... just like every other organization in the world, on the internet... RHIP. Arguing legal matters without the right rank gets you shut down FAST. Once in a while, it's a good Idea to just Sgt. Bilko the brass.

 

I'm not US citizen, but i got curious about what makes this or that kind of porn illegal in US, so i checked wiki and came across this three-prong Miller test that determines if some material is "obscene" (obscene, lol, as if obscene = illegal, geez). So here is how it goes:

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[5]

I was shocked discovering this, its so vague and retrograde that basically ANY porn can be easily declared obscene and therefore illegal. I have no idea how can your judiciary operate with such obsolete and rudimentary stipulations. And of course I didn't find anything similar to Harkness Test in actual laws, so I still have no idea why it is used as a yardstick here.

 

Most countries's laws tend to get vague and stuttering when they try to handle pornography and sex in general.

As far as I know, U.S. has still today countries where anal sex is an actual crime.

 

And a quick clarification on the Harkness test. Essentially it was used as a yardstick by the "Doctor Who" writers, and went into various fandoms as a result. (The show "Torchwood" a Doctor Who spinoff, pushed the limits a great deal, including non consensual alien breeding as well...)
Short version is its what you could get away with on the BBC, a UK government run channel, which is still the country most US "common law" is based off. If Doctor Who/Torchwood can suggest it openly, you can write porn on it. They used Pantomime makeup to obscure the fact of what they're suggesting most of the time. It's an appeal to precedent, which seems to be the only thing that US courts accept.

 

Well, I guess it rather comes down to all previous decisions.

It seems to me that common law doesn't really move with the times.

As already stated, it isn't just "some meme".
I guess you can even consider it a common standard for this kind of determination.

A fantasy animal is an animal.

Simply apply the ruling of similar cases of the past.

 

Thx for clarifications, guys, esp this one:

Now I'll have to watch Torchwood to get a gist of how much they "pushed the limits" of Harkness Test actually. Because in my mind even adding non-consent completely invalidates whole rule. Like why would you care if creature is sentient enough to give you informed consent, if you won't ask it anyway and just going to rape the poor thing. You can rape both smart and stupid aliens with equal success, but former is somehow acceptable, and later is not. Geez, what a mess, not that anyone would ask my opinion on the matter ofc.

 

Rape is also morally repulsive if you ask me, and yet I'm getting told that non-con between adults is far better than wholesome high school cuddling? (because it's not just lolicons that are banned)

But I'll grant "it's not us, but erring on the side of caution for the stupid law", is at least the only legit and consistent excuse I have ever heard.

Common law in general is a shitfest.
With this said, I don't really think writing about anything vanilla is going to be considered illegal (like, aside of religious zealots who's disturbed by the knowledge of eleventh graders having sex?).
And maybe even something a bit more kinky could be good, as long as it wasn't just smut for it's own sake but part of a story with some decent plot and prose.

But with forum shopping even being a thing (and especially with anti-porn activists at an all time moral panic high), I can see why regardless of good faith and legal standing, even just a SLAPP suit could be too much to bear.

*states
Yes and no. They still have those laws in their criminal code, but they have been ruled unconstitutional.
And for as much as.. You still can't really expect sanity and logic from certain people, it must be said it's not that unusual for "nobody to have bothered enough" to strike down zombie laws.

 

The funny thing is that both Non-con and Underage content* can be found in Filmography that you can walk down to your nearest store and purchase. Of course, the argument here would be that they weren't made to be pornographic, but rather artistic. Meanwhile, anything on Chyoa(regardless of quality) is not here for artistic value, but personal gratification.


*note that the actors for these would be adults, but they were still acting as a younger person and depicted as such

 

Sadly, no, not in the slightest. Of course we are talking about scenes only implying sex in mainstream movies, not essay's movies with nearly-real sex scenes.

Thing is, freedom of expression is kind of a big deal, or was up to a few years ago.
Chyoa and similia get to behave because they declare their pornographic intent upfront and they are small and weak from a legal standpoint, they can't risk to go to court ot whatever.